ATHENA INVESTMENT, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 42/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2007 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO. 42/MUM/2020 (ITA NOS. 3840/MUM/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S ATHENA INVESTMENT, 907, 9 TH FLOOR, SHRI KRISHNA BUILDING, OPP. LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400053. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 25(2)(1), C-12, ROOM NO. 703, 7 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400051. PAN NO. AAMFA7242E APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SANJAY PARIKH, AR REVENUE BY : MS. SHREEKALA PARDESHI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/12/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), TH E APPLICANT SEEKS RECALL OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 13.05.2019. 2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THE APPLICANT IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF A MALE MEMBER W HO IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND A WORKING PARTNER AND TWO LADY PARTNERS; DUE TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SON AND THE SENIOR MALE PARTNER, THE SON DISCON TINUED TO LOOK AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ; THE AFFAIRS OF TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM WERE THEREAFTER LOOKED AFTER BY THE SOLE MALE PARTNER, W HO IS A SENIOR CITIZEN ; MA NO. 42/MUM/2020 M/S ATHENA INVESTMENT 2 DUE TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SENIOR PARTNER AND H IS SON, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE FIRM ; HOWEVER, NEITHE R THE SENIOR PARTNER NOR THE NEWLY APPOINTED ACCOUNTANT WAS AWARE THAT THE C HANGE IN ADDRESS WAS TO BE INTIMATED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THUS IT IS STATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT AS THE A PPLICANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE, THEY COULD NOT ATTEND BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. IT IS PLEADED BY HIM THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-AT TENDANCE I.E. CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND NON-RECEIPT OF NOTICES BY THE APPLICANT . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE (DR) SUBMITS THAT NEITHER THERE WAS ANY COMPLIANCE BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR BEFORE THE ITAT. IT IS THUS ARGUED BY HER THAT AS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE ME RITS, THE PRESENT MA BE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THOUGH THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05.12.2018 AND 07.05.2019, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE ABOVE DATE. HOWEVE R, HAVING CONSIDERED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL, WE AGREE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE NON-APPEAR ANCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, W E RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5000/- BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO F IX THIS APPEAL BEFORE A REGULAR BENCH, AFTER INFORMING THE DATE TO BOTH THE PARTIES. MA NO. 42/MUM/2020 M/S ATHENA INVESTMENT 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED AB OVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/12/2020. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 07/12/2020. RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI